#VoterID hearing lawyers make their case.

Lawyers on both sides of a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's new Voter Identification law began laying out their cases during a hearing before state Commonwealth Court this morning.

"The real purpose of the law is not for lofty goals, it is for partisan advantage," David Gersh, a lawyer for the plaitiffs told Judge Robert E. Simpson in an hour-long opening statement.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking an injunction to keep the law from going into effect during the Nov. 6 general election, estimate that about 1 million voters, largely the poor and the elderly, will be disenfranchised as a result of the law, which requires people to show photo ID every time the vote.

They also say the state has made it too difficult for many of those voters to obtain a state-issued photo identification card that would allow them to cast ballots on Election Day because they do not have access to Social Security cards or cannot obtain a birth certificate with a raised seal.

"The direction of history has always been to expand the franchise," Gersh said. "Here, the Commonwealth is trying to turn back the clock."

Patrick Cawley, a lawyer for the state Attorney General's Office, rejected Gersh's arguments, saying voters will have plenty of time to obtain appropriate identification before Election Day.

He also noted that provisions in the law allowing the use of government-employee photo ID, college and military IDs with expiration dates and even ID cards issued by nursing homes would still allow people to vote.

Those without proper ID would still not be turned away from the polls because they would be allowed to cast provisional ballots. Those casting such ballots would have to provide proof of their identity with six days to have their ballots count, he said.

"In this day and age, nothing could be more rational than requiring a photo ID when coming to the polls," Cawley said.

Much of the week that the proceeding is expected to last will likely focus on claims that the law is intended to cut down on voter fraud and to ensure the integrity of elections. Opponents vigorously dispute this is the case.

Simpson, a former Northampton County judge, acknowledged in brief remarks that the hearing is a dress rehearsal for an appeal to the state Supreme Court. He said he expects to make a ruling by mid-August.